Tag Archives: ethnocentrism

Many of you already know, as I explained it in my article Ron Paul is the most hypocritical candidate, that Ron Paul had seen his popularity grow significantly since the last few years, not only in “American” media and European media. If I predicted the first case, see They all want change, the latter is for the least astonishing, especially for someone seen by our “American” media as the savior of our nation.

Maybe it’s Ron Paul’s opposition to any form of American patriotism that appeals the foreign so much ? Or maybe they like his ideas on free trade and small government ?
But if they support anti-patriotism in America, free trade in America and small governments in America, wouldn’t that mean that they also support those ideas in their own countries ?
Wrong.

Most of the medias supporting Ron Paul now are also the ones supporting the European nationalists groups, and honestly I don’t see any similitude in their programs.
Ron Paul and the European nationalist parties are both labelled as anti-system, or anti-establishment. In both cases, this is an incorrect label as neither Ron Paul nor the European nationalist parties are actually proposing anything fundamentally different than what’s in effect in their respective countries.

So now let’s review Ron Paul message :

Strong emphasis on morals and principles : ethics above patriotism

For free trade and against any border restrictions

Supporting globalism against nationalism

A very limited government

For government transparency

Against cultural ethnocentrism

And now let’s review the commonalities of many European nationalist programs :

Zero government transparency : control of the medias, control of mails/phone calls of citizens and applying even more the “reasons of state” (basically meaning that governments can’t be condemn for any crime/violation because they are acting in the best interests of the citizens)

For cultural ethnocentrism, and even the prohibition of American culture

It’s obvious that not only are there very few similarities (if any) between Ron Paul’s program and the European nationalist ideas, but they are actually opposite.
The only subject that they agree on is that they are both justifying and supporting anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism.

This information is all verifiable, I can even provide you every political program of each party for the most recent years and you can compare for yourselves (if you read the languages).

Moreover, next time you see any foreign or “American” media supporting Ron Paul’s ideas, know that they are also supporting the opposite for their country. They just agree with anti-Americanism.
The same goes for any opposition to American governments.

Ron Paul is not a liberal because he is against the first and foremost liberal concept, individual responsibility. He is for individual irresponsibility, which is simply a prolongation of the collective irresponsibility doctrine imposed by the anti-American socialists during the last forty years.
Although it is a certain improvement, I believe we can do better than this.

Although he promotes some liberal concepts, Ron Paul is not a liberal as he is simply recycling the socialist doctrine in order for it to fit in our current economic situation. Exactly the same as Obama with his Obamacare.

He is only giving out another miracle pill to magically “fix everything”. Now that the socialists have run out of options to justify the downfall of our economy, the mindless masses turn to a libertarian solution. But it is exactly the same doctrine.

Now I’m not denying that Ron Paul has some liberal tendencies sometimes, the problem is that most people believe he is popular because of his liberalism.
I would say that he is popular in spite of his liberalism.

Let’s compare two liberal candidates : Ron Paul and Newt Gringrich (although he has a conservative view on some social issues).
One man is a real liberal, he is more ethnocentrist than his opponents and somewhat resembles a little more the liberals in Europe and Asia which are also nationalists. That man is Newt Gringrich.

Newt Gringrich has a decent liberal and patriotic program, and speaks in the interest of the USA.
He is obviously unpopular, because the anti-American media and public opinion wants nothing to do with patriotism and ethnocentrism, they want the magic “miracle” pill, that would allow them to conserve a decent life quality while continuing down the road of trade deficits.

The other man, Ron Paul, is simply trying to surf on the public opinion, which is of course favorable to ethnomasochism and anti-Americanism.
He basically just recycled the socialist-hippie-citizen-of-the-world speech into a freedom-hippie-citizen-of-the-world speech.

Instead of saying that our trade deficit was acceptable because the government can tax the rich and borrow money from other countries in order to maintain a decent life quality for the masses (socialist approach), he is saying our trade deficit is acceptable because (???).
Anyway, regardless of the reasons, this goes against the first and foremost liberal concept : individual responsibility.
Eluding the facts concerning ethnomasochim, anti-Americanism and such fallacies as foreign films for example is also not a liberal solution.

Sure some of his views are liberal, but those aren’t the views that made him popular in the media and public opinion. What made him popular was the ethnomasochism and anti-Americanism.

It’s almost like he copied Newt’s program, but took out what wouldn’t please the masses. The reality in other words.
It’s like trying a new diet but intentionally stripping out what is not appealing.

Like buying a new abs program, not following correct bodybuilding guidelines, and still hoping to get a six pack.

In other words, a magic pill society. Unfortunately, that is not reality. Newt Gringrich is closer to real liberalism than Ron Paul will ever be, simply because he is accepting the real problems, unlike Ron Paul who is constantly in denial of reality.

It is no mystery why foreign films know such a great success in the USA. What is not to love for a typical brainwashed American ? Bad/plagiarized scenarios, terrible acting, and even anti-American propaganda in some cases (I’m not implying that this type of propaganda doesn’t exist in American movies either).

Over the years, the anti-American and ethnomasochist media that govern us, and the use of the verb is intentional, we have witnessed an uncontrollable influx of anti-American propaganda.
The concepts of national pride, patriotism, ethnocentrism were gradually replaced by concepts such as worship of the foreign, anti-Americanism and ethnomasoscism.

Once again, we traded individual responsibility for collective irresponsibility.
When in other countries, the mere word “foreign” is severely demonized and badly connoted (“étranger” en Français, “fremd” auf Deutsch…), in the USA it is almost revered.

After replacing national pride by anti-Americanism in the masses, it is only logical that more adoration of the foreign must follow, and this until American culture is completely eradicated… and at the same time complain about “Americanization” of the society.

The sole concept Foreign films is inherently American, to a lesser extend in other English speaking cultures.
There is no word to describe foreign films in French for example. You could say “film étranger”, which is the grammatically correct way of saying it, but other than that it’s a nonword at best.
As a matter of fact, why would any country that takes pride in nationalism and the rejection of the foreign want to hear about such a concept ?

It is also funny how a lot of the foreign films promoted here in America, were in fact advertised as anti-American and nationalist, in their home countries.

If the United States of America want to be sovereign once more, it must reject such an attack on their culture (and economy).